I respect that we all have our preferences on how HSF should progress. Its a common topic amongst a small circle of my friends and I can tell you that we're all well educated with various science and engineering backgrounds, but not one of us agree completely and all of us have varying degress of similarity in our approach. Its the old straight line and circle thing where 100 different engineers will draw at least 100 different pictures. Its fun to consider the view on our own napkins. However, at some point, we're forced to ponder the likely outcome given the politics, law and engineering that will be brought to bear. Our napkins are irrelevent when it comes to actual decision making. The decision makers have their own napkins and those will be most likely the adopted designs.
My interest in this case is specifically what NASA will do to meet the legislative mandate. Regardless of what we might think or want, it is very likely that Orion or something very Orion like is going to be part of that solution, essentially as the law demands. Lockheed's announcement gives some small insight as to how that might occur. Do not forget, that legally, HSF mission is not limited to LEO and where NASA is concerned, LEO and HSF may not even make sense in the same sentence.
I do appreciate the conversation on this though as it has triggered another thought as it regards Lockheed's perception of funding and risk of their decision to pursue the Delta IV. Some group or individual in their management considers funding of current mandates along with the inclusion of Orion a fairly likely outcome, else why would they accept even a small risk. Total speculation on my part, but interesting if they are of such a mind given their inside knowledge of NASA leanings is likely greater than anything we'll read in the press for some months to come.